Naftali Bennett: Deceptive Racist Face of Israel

Increased racism and ethnic bigotry of the Zionist youth:

Karl Vick:

Israel is moving to the political right even faster than Netanyahu calculated, and cannot be expected to slow down. The surge toward Jewish Home is the best evidence of that. Its strength comes mainly from young voters, Jewish Israelis who polls have long shown are more nationalist and more right-wing than their parents.

Naftali Bennett:

Naftali Bennett

Look. I'll tell you. It's just not going to happen. We're now very near 400,000 Israelis in Judea and Samaria. I tell you, when I travel abroad or read a magazine... it's obvious to me that it's a fait accompli and there's going to be a Palestinian state. But when I spend half a day in the field, it's obvious there's never going to be a Palestinian state. And this paradox is going to be the source of the friction. Whether you want it or not — I'm not even going into all the arguments why it's good, why it's not good — it's just not going to happen. It's not going to happen because we don't have partner. It's not going to happen because no one's going to expel 200,000 Israelis, or 160,000, which is the most minimal plan. ... If you say you support a Palestinian state, then you can't be surprised if everyone's pressuring you to do it.
I'm telling you. A, it's ours, it's always been ours for 3,800 years we have Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria [West Bank] since we first got it, 3800 years ago.

See: An Hour with Naftali Bennett: Is the Right-Wing Newcomer the New Face of Israel? |

"'s always been ours for 3,800 years we have Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria since we first got it, 3800 years ago." Actually, you lost it under the Babylonians and the Greeks and the Romans. What you've done is use violence yet again to illegally, immorally, unethically take what you covet. Now you think that the whole world will fall for your extremely weak-minded psychological ploy saying that "no one's going to expel 200,000 Israelis, or 160,000." If the rest of the world treats you as the Apartheid South Africans, if they treat you the way you've been insisting that they treat the Iranians, you will fall.

Give us one good reason why we should go along with your ploy? You have none.

It is time for everyone on this planet to stand up against these insane Zionists wherever they are, Israel, the US, you name it.

Doing that is not an endorsement of sharia. It is a call for a one-state solution where the state is neither Jewish nor Muslim but rather people where ethnicity grants no one more rights than anyone else. That's how it should be.

If you think I'm being inconsistent because I'm a Christian, you are mistaken. Christianity has no ethnic bigotry in it at all.

Let the best religion, philosophy, ideology, etc., win on the merits, not on being censored, not on being outlawed by those who can't stand the truth, the people, all the people, being informed, fully informed.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.